"Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's ..."

and unto God the things that are God's."

Ah, I see the president is busy today publicly proclaiming his Christianity, pushing the Golden Rule (that seems to have disappeared in his foreign policies of late), and telling us how he interprets the Gospel as someone blessed, who is called upon personally to give more (to Caesar, presumably for redistribution).

I wonder if he's read far enough into the Book, not just to pull out scripture as his campaign needs, but to understand what Jesus was telling us in this story?

Narrative: The synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities. The accounts in Matthew and Mark say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke says only that they were "spies" sent by "teachers of the law and the chief priests".

They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor" (Luke 20:20). The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark (12:15) the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?" Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." The questioners were impressed (Matthew 22:22 states that they "marvelled", ἐθαύμασαν) and satisfied with the answer, they went away.

Doctrinal context: Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes in hope that he would answer "yes" or "no". Answering "yes" would have left him open to the accusation that he was in opposition to Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation and therefore (given the assumption by the Jews that they still held privileged nation status with God at this time) against God, too. Answering "no" would have given those present an opportunity to report him to the Roman authorities as someone who was trying to incite a revolt. His questioners had assumed that there was an inevitable (and hazardous) dichotomy between discharging one's obligations to the state and discharging one's obligations to God, but Jesus refused to confront the dichotomy as framed by his hostile questioners and instead pointed to the assumptions behind it.

The episode illustrates Jesus' skill in holding his ground in doctrinal debates and rhetorics against the orthodox Jewish scholars of the time.

Ah, ;-)
they'll always be with us.

ADDED: Interestingly enough, that same scripture passage might be used as an example of State's rights. Render unto the federal government all that outlined in The Constitution. But everything else not spelled out? That is reserved to the States, just as everything not Caesar's belongs to G-d.

It's not so much about money, but about freedoms and who decides what is owed to whom. President Obama should take care not to let his speechwriters overstep, as even Jesus did not.